Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1887-01-15
TAXING THE POOR.
From the Boston Herald

Probably not more than one man IN
q thousand, when he hears or reads
anything concerning the controversy
over the tariff now going on in WASH
ington, thinks of the subject as a ques-
ton of taxation. Yet this is the sub
stance of tho whole matter. Our city
and state taxes are direct taxes, while
the national tax is an indirect tax, and,
on account of the fact that 1t is indirect
the weight that it imposes is not so
readily perceived.
All modern economists are agreed
that an indirect tax is much more like
ly to be unjust in its application than a
direct tax, for it ordinarily falls, no
upon the wealth of the individual, but
upon that which he consumes.
The distinction can be seen by COM
pairing our two systems. The city of
Boston imposes al annual tax upon ITS
people of approximately $~9,ooO,OOo
The great portion of this is paid by a
relatively few wealthy individuals II
corporations. These, in turn, attempt
to get back what they have paid, and if
they are owners OF real estate which
they do not occupy themselves they
may succeed, by charging the taxes in
rent, in making this recovery, and in
indirectly distributing the burden of
the tax. But a very large part, andprob-
ably the larger, cannot be thus thrown
off upon the shoulders of others. The
man who has his wealth invested in
stocks and bonds, or who occupies a
costly house, usually has to meet the
tax out of his own pocket; while those
Of small means, or those possessed OF no
acquired capital, pay very little tax,
except, as we have said, in the way OF
Increased rent. 1t is because these
taxes fall so certainly upon the wealth
of the community that wealthy men are
all the time crying out for economy in
municipal expenditures and for low
rates of taxation. 1t vas this same
feature in the old income tax-the fact
that it could not be thrown off for
others to carry-that made it 80 OBJ
jectionable in the eyes of wealthy
Americans. Yet a tax to be just and
equitable should bear upon each citizen
according to his resources. Those who
have wealth should pay the taxes;
those who have no property should pay
little or nothing.
Now, the iniquity of our national
system of taxation is that it does not
follow the rule just stated. 1t is a tax,
not upon wealth, but upon consump-
ton. AS all or compelled to buy food,
clothes and household utensils, etc ,
and as the tax is indirectly imposed
upon nearly everything they buy, there
tore they have to pay the tax, be they
rich or poor. But the difference may
be e by the results. Probably two
thirds of our municipal tax is paid, alb
solutely and withoutchance of recovery,
from those whose incomes are $4,000 a
year and upward; but it is safe to say
that more than t%wo-thirds OF the tax
the national government receives from
the people of Boston is paid by those
having incomes of less than S5 900 per
annum. In one case the burden of tax
falls upon the poorer classes, and it Is
this that constitutes the injustice of the
system.
If the reader will firmly fix this dis
tinction in his mind, he will understand
why it is that, while he frequently
hears OF men of wealth crying odt
against municipal taxation, he rarely
hears them make any complaint about
the burden of national taxation. Why
should they? AS compared with their
means, they pay very little. The bur-
den of the national tax falls many times
heavier upon the mechanic and day
laborer than upon the millionaire. IT
the former had the time and opportuni-
ty to study the customs tariff, he
would find that, while many of the
coarse, cheap articles which he is COM
PEELED to buy for his own use or the use
Of his family are taxed at ar exorbitant
rate, many Of the fine and costly arti
cles that the rich can alone purchase
have only a moderate tax imposed upon
them In short the tax falls chiefly
upon the necessities of life, while the
Injuries are, by contrast, passed Over
Il it strange then that many of the cap
i~tslists and their newspaper organs thai
cry out against municipal extravaganza
can be found advocating large national
appropriations? Not at all, These
gentlemen know upon which side theil
bread is buttered, and have no desire
to have a system of taxation changed
which, while 1t is continued, relieves
them of the necessity of paying any bu,
an insignificant proportiorOf the taxes
Mention an income tax to them and see
how quickly they would change theil
opinions about the desirability Of large
national appropriations. Thus farthey
have befooled their poorer felIow-citi.
zeus by pretending that this method o
taxation was for the benefit of lh'
working people. How long do the iat
ter intend to be thus deluded?
~ ~
-N- ma nan